Literature DB >> 36265002

Real-Time fast PCR amplification using designated and conventional real time thermal cycler systems: COVID-19 perspective.

Md Walid Hossain1, Mohabbat Hossain2, Khalid Arafath1, Subarna Sayed Ety1, Md Mahade Hasan Shetu1, Mazbahul Kabir1, Farjana Akther Noor1, Kaiissar Mannoor1.   

Abstract

The study aimed to shorten multiplex RT-PCR run time for detection of SARS CoV-2 N1 and N2 sequences and human RNase P (RP) sequence as internal mRNA control using conventional and designated real time thermal cycler systems. Optimization of Fast PCR protocol using plasmid-based N1 and N2 positive control and synthetic version of human RP was done on Applied Biosystems (ABI) QuantStudioTM5 (conventional), ABI 7500 Fast Dx (designated), and CFX96 Touch Real Time Detection System, Bio-Rad (conventional). Finally, a performance evaluation of Fast PCR was performed in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and precision. For a 40-cycle PCR with optimized Fast PCR protocols on QuantStudioTM5, ABI 7500 Fast Dx, and CFX96 Touch (conventional), standard/regular versus Fast PCR run times (min) were 84 vs. 49, 96 vs. 48, and 103 vs. 61, thereby saving 35, 48, and 43 min, respectively. For each thermal cycler, Standard and Fast PCR generated identical shapes of fluorescence curves, Ct values, and (3) R2 (0.95 to 0.99) for 5 10-log dilution panels of each positive control. The fast PCR approach generated results with 100% sensitivity and specificity. Median test comparisons between standard PCR and Fast PCR Cts of COVID-19 samples did not produce significance (p>0.5), suggesting that Fast PCR and Standard PCR were comparable. Also, the median and mean of each target had closely-related values, further suggesting that the two approaches were comparable. That is, there is an equivalency between Conventional and Fast PCR instruments for detection of COVID-19.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36265002      PMCID: PMC9584428          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276464

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.752


  11 in total

1.  Quantitative assessment of PML-RARa and BCR-ABL by two real-time PCR instruments: multiinstitutional laboratory trial.

Authors:  Pascual Bolufer; Dolors Colomer; Maria T Gomez; Joaquín Martínez; Silvia M Gonzalez; Marcos Gonzalez; Josep Nomdedeu; Beatriz Bellosillo; Eva Barragán; Francesco Lo-Coco; Daniela Diverio; Lourdes Hermosin; José García-Marco; Maria D De Juan; Francisco Barros; Rafael Romero; Miguel A Sanz
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 8.327

2.  Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with a thermostable DNA polymerase.

Authors:  R K Saiki; D H Gelfand; S Stoffel; S J Scharf; R Higuchi; G T Horn; K B Mullis; H A Erlich
Journal:  Science       Date:  1988-01-29       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  A programmable system to perform the polymerase chain reaction.

Authors:  H U Weier; J W Gray
Journal:  DNA       Date:  1988 Jul-Aug

4.  Faster quantitative real-time PCR protocols may lose sensitivity and show increased variability.

Authors:  Chelsey Hilscher; Wolfgang Vahrson; Dirk P Dittmer
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2005-11-27       Impact factor: 16.971

5.  A Comparative Study of Real-Time RT-PCR-Based SARS-CoV-2 Detection Methods and Its Application to Human-Derived and Surface Swabbed Material.

Authors:  Aizhan Tastanova; Corinne Isabelle Stoffel; Andreas Dzung; Phil Fang Cheng; Elisa Bellini; Pål Johansen; Agathe Duda; Stephan Nobbe; Reto Lienhard; Philipp Peter Bosshard; Mitchell P Levesque
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 5.568

6.  Low performance of rapid antigen detection test as frontline testing for COVID-19 diagnosis.

Authors:  Anaïs Scohy; Ahalieyah Anantharajah; Monique Bodéus; Benoît Kabamba-Mukadi; Alexia Verroken; Hector Rodriguez-Villalobos
Journal:  J Clin Virol       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 3.168

Review 7.  Detection technologies and recent developments in the diagnosis of COVID-19 infection.

Authors:  Praveen Rai; Ballamoole Krishna Kumar; Vijaya Kumar Deekshit; Indrani Karunasagar; Iddya Karunasagar
Journal:  Appl Microbiol Biotechnol       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  The Global Health Security Index is not predictive of coronavirus pandemic responses among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries.

Authors:  Enoch J Abbey; Banda A A Khalifa; Modupe O Oduwole; Samuel K Ayeh; Richard D Nudotor; Emmanuella L Salia; Oluwatobi Lasisi; Seth Bennett; Hasiya E Yusuf; Allison L Agwu; Petros C Karakousis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.